And bring your friends
Its fun to lose and pretend
She is over bored and self assured
Oh No, I know a Dirty Word

Ok for those that didn’t know that's an obscure Nirvana reference. The first few lines of "Smells like Teen Sprit"

Life imitating Art to day at the local gun store! I went in to the local sleepy gun store to return/exchange a part. There was like 50 people in the shop. I have never seen more than 2 or 3 at most.

I was shocked! Was there some sort of black Friday sale? I asked the guy behind the counter what's going on? His reply. It's been like this ever since the shooting. Still confused I asked, are people afraid they are going to be a victim. He said No! Most feel that there will be some sort of Ban on guns ECT so they are "Loading Up on Guns” Wow nothing like a bit of fear and paranoia to help gun sales along.

Another guy behind the computer announced, “ya know how many guns were sold today in California” The Answer 4,600 this was at 4:30.

I've been debating on whether or not to post this, or what thread it would be appropriate in so I think this one will do.

I'm about as conservative a guy as you'll find on this site. and I've owned an AR-15 for a few years. and am a CHL holder.

Having said that, these thoughts have bubbled in my head since I bought it.

Why do I own it? It's not a good home defense weapon. It's not a particularly good hunting weapon (the exception being hogs). I've never been hog hunting and have no real plans to do so. If the opportunity came up, I'd go. but we don't have hogs on our land (luckily).
The only REAL answer I can come up with is "because I can". I was thinking about my father's guns. Every gun he owns has a purpose. It's either a bolt action rifle, or a long shotgun (or a pistol). He never said anything to me, but I could tell he was like "what on earth do you need that for" when I showed him my AR.
I think they're analogous to Pit Bulls (i'm sure many of you will disagree on this), but you'd have to admit a part of the reason anyone would own a pit bull, even just a tiny bit of the reason, is because of their reputation as a badazz. That may be some of the draw to AR's/AK's for me and many others.

If I were to be brutally honest with myself, the real answer is, I don't need it. If AR's (and other "assault rifles") were unobtainable I wouldn't really be missing out on anything.
And further brutal honesty leads me to say, that a large part of my opposition to any gun-control legislation is purely based in the idea that I fundamentally oppose much of what "the other side" stands for. And I know that if they had their way, even my father's (and my) other rifles, handguns etc, would also be "illegal". If I were to decide to sell my AR, I want to do it on MY terms, not because some legislator told me to (again, a big part of my conservative/libertarian core beliefs).

I've been listening to a LOT of the gun talk in the media, here, and elsewhere and really can't think why we shouldn't at least consider some kind of limitations like magazine limits, or more stringent requirements for certain firearms. If you REALLY want an AR, maybe you should be at least a CHL holder or FFL even. I mean, where can a line be drawn/re-drawn? Why can't you own an RPG today? It takes a kid 6 months and multiple trips to the DPS to get a drivers license, but I can buy an AR in less than an hr. But I'm scared of the pandora's box that could open if you give this administration an inch.

Don't get me wrong. In this latest incident, I do NOT blame the gun. And fully realize that his mother owned the firearms legally in a state that's notoriously difficult to do so. I do question her judgement as to why she would pursue them knowing her son was that unstable (based on at least what we know today of the situation).
And the flip side, there's no real evidence that I'm aware of that bans/restrictions will do anything to stop these kinds of incidents. In fact didn't columbine happen during the Clinton era ban? BUT, if it were more hassle than it was worth for Lanza's mom to buy an AR, would this incident have happened? who knows.

"During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban."

1. I think that certain guns have certain purposes. Hunting, protection of home/family. With that said, can't really understand the need for big time assault rifles.

2. The argument of "It is the 2nd amendment - it is our right!" hits me in two ways -
A.) The 2nd amendment was created so that citizens could have guns to protect themselves, create a militia, and rebel against the government if needed. It was written at a time when people owned similar guns to the government they would need to fight against.... not the case today. If anyone thinks the original intent of this amendment holds true today, good luck with your pea-shooters against our military.
B.) Leave the amendments alone because it just opens the door to fudging with other ones. First guns, next free speech, when does it end?

3. Guns are not the problem, guns are also not the solution. Less guns won't remove the problem of public mass shootings, more guns won't remove the problem either. People can pick and choose examples to make their case for either side, but bottom line is that is someone has the will to go berserk and kill people, they'll find a way to do it.

Nick, I've also thought about your 2.a point. but keep in mind a few things. One, don't assume that our military would actually carry out orders to use full military force on US citizens. That's an unlawful order. Two, AR's aren't exactly a pea shooters and is the same primary weapon the military uses, just not fully auto. Three, think of the damage rag-tag groups of insurgents do to the full might of our military every day in Afg. So no, I alone could not stop a ground assault rolling thru my neighborhood, but I alone am not exactly a militia. God forbid anything like that were to EVER happen. But it HAS happened before in history.. more than once. and to me that IS the core principle of the 2nd amendment.

I wonder why China is the biggest supporter of banning all gun ownership over here.... Hmmmm I think I'll keep mine for the time being. The second amendment not only protects us from our own government. Just go back to the Japanese and some of the reason why a mainland invasion of the US never took place after Pearl. I mean, if we hadnt smoked em with those two little bombs.

calexan: I wonder why China is the biggest supporter of banning all gun ownership over here.

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

While Synder: can't justify owning an AR many people can. I will give you a few examples. Some people including myself don't hunt and have no Interest in Hunting guns or Hunting life style. But we do like guns. This we have in common, We like to own different style of guns for various reason's Home protection, Hunting, Sport, you name it., you can liken it to car's. Do you need to own a car that go's 200MPH??? Do many of the people that own cars that go 200MPH even have the ability to even drive them at that level? If the answer is NO to either of those questions should we not make them available? should a person that Owns a Exotic fast car be looks at in a strange way like "What do you need that for" If someone took a Car that went 200 MPH and drove it into a school and killed 30 people would we out law cars that go 200 MPH. Many people that Own over the top things Like Exotic car's and Wake boats that hold 3000 LBS of ballast DONT need them, But used in the proper way they bring no harm. The Argument of Gun Control is in many way no different then Lakes outlawing Ballast Boats or HCLD speakers.

I find these rushes somewhat amusing.... I am sure it is a tiny boost for the local economy and good for the stores selling the firearms.....

The way I look at it, if they didn't own a firearm before last Friday....the rush to get one now has me shaking my head. Why, because now the media is telling them maybe you can't get one next year? Now they better go get one? Okay....whatever floats their boat....sell away IMO. I just hope they are not financing them.....

Grant, I get what you're saying... However you can't shoot a bullet at 2 mph, or even 20... The point is the nature of the beast and to what extent should society go to regulate it? Just like with cars (and yes this is done POORLY) it needs to be somewhat regulated.

Again, disclaimer: I'm about as pro-gun as you can get. just expressing some thoughts that I've had.
but just for the sake of argument, because lord knows we love to argue on WW.

There are lines drawn already. for example: you can't buy c4, you can't buy an RPG. why not? I suppose technically you can with the proper licensing, which furthers my point... you actually can, but it's such a pain in the azz that hardly anyone could do it. What if we went carte blanche and you could now buy C4 or RPG's at Academy with a simple background check? would that be okay?
Or a car analogy. How many people would line up to buy a 1000 hp NASCAR at their local chevy dealer? Of course you CAN buy that car today if you have the means to do so, but would only be able to drive it in certain special conditions (at a track for instance) which makes it a barrier to entry for 99.9% of the population.
So, the lines are already there. I mean, maybe the lines are fine where they are. Maybe not in some cases. just sayin'... for the sake of argument of course.

I think that there are a lot of moderate gun (and non-gun) owners who have no intention of taking anyone's guns away, but who see some guns as being more dangerous than their utility. Like C4 or a granade. Why is the line at full auto OK?

I'm not a gun guy, but I respect your constitutional right to own firearms. But I do think that there is some ambiguity on the bleeding edge of the issue about what, exactly, a constitutionally protected arm is. The supreme court's recent Heller decision is really a good read in that respect. It doesn't answer the question but it does provide some context within which a future court could make a determination.

I dont own guns, but i respect everyones rights to own them. I think there needs to be more stringent laws in place to own them, but i am not going to beat a dead horse with that topic.
As long as our govt continues to put these types of weapons in the hands of criminals in mexico, and the middle east, they need to stfu about the law abiding citizens who do own them.
And i do currently blame nancy lanza for the tragedy in Newtown. With the info we have right now that is.

There is a fundamental logic flaw at play here. You cannot create laws to control those who do not follow laws. It does not make the life of the criminal any harder in the slightest. Anyone who has ever taken apart a AR magazine knows it wouldn't be that hard to produce a hi cap mag if one was so inclined. They are already out there to copy.

There are many who don't own guns, but they are comforted by the fact that they could get them in an instant if they needed to. That's the greatness of the second amendment. It encourages both the gun owner and non-gun owner to know that they are safe.

Many can't afford to own a different gun for every purpose under the sun. An AR is a good all in one. Its great at home defense (while maybe not the most ideal). Its fun to just enjoy shooting (unlike your home defense chainsaw shotgun), and its a very accurate hunting rifle.

In a free society that allows the nut-jobs to run freely among the citizens, they cannot legislate the nut-jobs into compliance. Any attempt only negatively affects the normal people. We are a society based on personal accountability living in an age where we constantly try to avoid accountability\responsibility. Our answer to maintaining control without holding each other accountable is to remove freedom.

There is a fundamental logic flaw at play here. You cannot create laws to control those who do not follow laws. It does not make the life of the criminal any harder in the slightest. Anyone who has ever taken apart a AR magazine knows it wouldn't be that hard to produce a hi cap mag if one was so inclined. They are already out there to copy.

There are many who don't own guns, but they are comforted by the fact that they could get them in an instant if they needed to. That's the greatness of the second amendment. It encourages both the gun owner and non-gun owner to know that they are safe.

Many can't afford to own a different gun for every purpose under the sun. An AR is a good all in one. Its great at home defense (while maybe not the most ideal). Its fun to just enjoy shooting (unlike your home defense chainsaw shotgun), and its a very accurate hunting rifle.

In a free society that allows the nut-jobs to run freely among the citizens, they cannot legislate the nut-jobs into compliance. Any attempt only negatively affects the normal people. We are a society based on personal accountability living in an age where we constantly try to avoid accountability\responsibility. Our answer to maintaining control without holding each other accountable is to remove freedom.

WTF??? How safe were the poor people that were gun downed in that school? How much safer were they because the mother had a AR-15 in her house? That statement boarderlines stupidity. Now, maybe if you would have said "it provides gun owner and non-gun owner a false sense of security", ok. But I don't feel any safer in my daily life knowing that there are people armed all around me.

And what had that kid done to show that he needed to be institutionalized or not allowed "to run freely among the citizens". Because he seemed kind of creepy to some people? Because he liked to play video games? Okay, you just labeled about half of the kids that attend the high school where I teach. Was it because he had a fascination with guns? Okay, then we have to lock up 80% of the people that post on this forum.

I wonder why China is the biggest supporter of banning all gun ownership over here.... Hmmmm I think I'll keep mine for the time being. The second amendment not only protects us from our own government. Just go back to the Japanese and some of the reason why a mainland invasion of the US never took place after Pearl. I mean, if we hadnt smoked em with those two little bombs.

Jeremy if you were confronted by someone with a gun could you talk them into laying the gun down?I would prefer to own my own gun train with it everyday and have confidence i could defend myself. A 1911 .45acp is my weapon of choice.One shot will usually do,but i'll double tap every time to be sure.

^If someone sneaks up behind you and puts a gun against your head, could you talk them into laying the gun down? How valuable is your 1911 .45 then?

That's one scenario of many. If that happens you comply until they make a mistake or you just suck it up and get robbed. Carrying will not protect in every single scenario but not carrying will almost certainly not protect in every single scenario.

The scariest thing I have read on here so far is that wake77 is a teacher and actually may influence the young people of America

^If someone sneaks up behind you and puts a gun against your head, could you talk them into laying the gun down? How valuable is your 1911 .45 then?

1000 times more valuable than your brain or your tongue. I still have a chance if the perpetrator intends to kill me you would be defenseless.If you had a Baseball bat who would you rather fight for your life? A 6' 2" man without any weapons or a 4' 10" 90 lb woman who was a trained shooter and carrying a loaded gun? Think about it?

^I know, I should just teach them that carrying a gun is the answer or makes them a macho man. A good criminal would just take your pistol from you, stick it up your ass, and pull the trigger until it goes click.

It's not about arming people, but rather about taking away our rights. Our gov is too big the way it is, and there are a lot bigger problems for them to be focusing on rather than this. Leave the guns and ammo alone, focus on those who need the help, and keep them from slipping through the giant holes in the system. All the guns being sold are just adding to the amount of taxes being paid in.

^I know, I should just teach them that carrying a gun is the answer or makes them a macho man. A good criminal would just take your pistol from you, stick it up your ass, and pull the trigger until it goes click.

So all the good criminals kill their victims?

And a friend of mine named Chris got robbed on his front porch at gun point one night. As he handed over his wallet, keys, and phone all in one lump the assailant took the gun off of him trying to juggle his loot. At this point Chris, who is a CHL carrier pulled out his weapon and stuck it in the chest of the thief, the thief then proceeded to drop everything in his hands and run.

everyone knows the litmus test for teacher's is whether they believe everyone should be armed 24/7. Anything less is a pansy communist who is probably trying to indoctrinate our kid's with b.s. humanist theory's like "evolution" and "socalism."

The reason the media is using the brand name Bushmaster in their reports is because it has a nice and scary name. If it were a LMT (Lewis Machine and Tool) AR, they would not be naming the manufacturer. They would be naming Colt, S&W, Noveske, Spikes Tactical, etc. It is their agenda to make their news stories mean and scary.

^I know, I should just teach them that carrying a gun is the answer or makes them a macho man. A good criminal would just take your pistol from you, stick it up your ass, and pull the trigger until it goes click.

You obviously can't teach these kids anything! You think "Good Criminals" exist and people should just let someone stick a gun up their ass. A smart criminal is only a temporary thing.Once they know they are smart they usually get caught.Very similar to a smart Teacher who posts his know it all comments on WW.Once his students are taught they usually fail.Unless a Real Teacher helps them before they are totally brainwashed.

You obviously can't teach these kids anything! You think "Good Criminals" exist and people should just let someone stick a gun up their ass. A smart criminal is only a temporary thing.Once they know they are smart they usually get caught.Very similar to a smart Teacher who posts his know it all comments on WW.Once his students are taught they usually fail.Unless a Real Teacher helps them before they are totally brainwashed.

Yea, a real teacher is someone that believes in the same BS you do. If they don't, they are a bad teacher. Let's send out a bunch of mindless robots that believe exactly how Robert does. And besides, I teach math, no politics ever enter my classroom. But I guess I could make assumptions about you as well. I guess it makes you feel more cool.

And for everyone butt-hurt about my comment, about "sticking the gun up Robert's ass"; it's a line from the Big Lebowski.

Yea, a real teacher is someone that believes in the same BS you do. If they don't, they are a bad teacher. Let's send out a bunch of mindless robots that believe exactly how Robert does. And besides, I teach math, no politics ever enter my classroom. But I guess I could make assumptions about you as well. I guess it makes you feel more cool.

And for everyone butt-hurt about my comment, about "sticking the gun up Robert's ass"; it's a line from the Big Lebowski.

No a real teacher is someone who educates their students and lets them make their own choices.A real teacher encourages their students to apply their knowledge and become a productive citizen.A real teacher applies their skills in the classroom and doesn't spend all day on the computer trying to change educated citizens views.

Wow, you guys are really smart. You should be thanking anyone who is willing to dedicate their life to service. Instead you attack him because you have differing political views? Childish.

Teaching is an often thankless job where the best are constantly asked to do more with less in one of the most important jobs we have as a society. I for one am thankful for everyone who accepts that call to service.

People are just stupid. I don't think America needs a class on gun safety. I think most need a class on basic statistics. That chart on gun deaths is laughable. So why isn't Mexico, most African counties, Columbia, hell any of South America, etc. shown on the chart? What a misleading joke. Why not contrast the UK before the gun ban and after the gun ban? I guess showing murders and violence went UP after the ban wouldn't fit the liberal agenda. Why does Australia have the same trend? Let's say we banned yellow cars. Quite obviously the total number of fatal accidents involving yellow cars would go down BUT the total # of deaths would be unchanged right? So, isn't it ridiculous to say "See how many lives were saved after we banned yellow cars". That is the kind of bogus nonsense the anti-gun idiots use and most Americans are too stupid or lazy to really see through it. This shooting was probably the most awful thing I can imagine and I want action to stop them. This is absolutely heartbreaking. But, I want policy that will actually work- not stupid laws that will do absolutely nothing. We shouldn't surrender our freedom in the name of liberal stupidity.

Guns are very dangerous, but simple machines. If recent events make you feel the need to get a gun for protection, please take a gun safety course and learn how your weapon works. Most every gun range has classes every weekend and they are not expensive. Guys, take your wife/girlfriend too.

If you buy a gun and don't know how to use it, you are much less safe than without one.

Jeremy,
You haven't said it in this thread, but.. why would you call the police if someone were breaking into your house, or threatening you or your family?

What's the point of this question? I mean why would you call the police? I have a gun in my home, and I would still call the police if someone was breaking into my house. Why would you call the ambulance if you have a life-threatening emergency? I don't get the point of your question.

No a real teacher is someone who educates their students and lets them make their own choices.A real teacher encourages their students to apply their knowledge and become a productive citizen.A real teacher applies their skills in the classroom and doesn't spend all day on the computer trying to change educated citizens views.

How do you know what goes on in my classroom? Do you know me Robert? You thinking you have someone figured out because of my posts on an internet forum shows that, if you were a teacher, you wouldn't abide by what you think makes one a good teacher. Because we disagree ideologically, that makes me a bad teacher in your opinion. But I guarantee if I was on here boasting about guns or slamming Obama, you would think I was the greatest teacher alive. It just shows you are close-minded and a hypocrite. I mean, am I qualified to say you aren't a good tool.................................... salesman because of what you post on freaking Wakeworld?

I'm done with this argument, because frankly, I don't give a sheet whether or not you think I am good teacher or a bad one.

Jeremy for an educator and self proclaimed Smarty-pants I find it very amusing that you don't know. I think the question is pretty obvious! You better go on a paid sabbatical and do some research !

When have I ever proclaimed I am smarter than everyone? (I mean, I was at least smart enough to realize that Romney couldn't win the election.) You're another person who I don't know why I even waste my time responding. At least with some of the other posters who I disagree with there is a sort of "intellectual discussion". With you, it's like having a conversation with a 10 year old hillbilly. You just like to jump on the backs of the people with whom you agree. If you have something useful to say, then just say it.

And take about two hours and reread my post. I never said "I didn't know", I asked him what was his point.

I was talking about this with my dad who is a strange case indeed. He is an avid hunter (mostly upland game), has a safe full of guns and yet believes that no gun should hold more than three rounds. He says this more as a sportsman than a defender of the 2nd Amendment, which he believes in yet thinks there needs to be serious limitations to what can be owned. Its strange to think that he is far more liberal leaning than I.

I feel that there is a balance that can be attained when it comes to the type of weapons that can be owned and how many rounds they can hold. I honestly think CA has a pretty fair setup right now. Assault weapons can be owned, yet the magazine is "fixed" with a Bullet Button and the mags only hold 10 rounds. Now clearly that is restrictive in certain settings but seems like a middle ground of "no restrictions" and "no guns".

Now if we wish to control who can get their hands on guns my thoughts are as follows. First and foremost, significantly stronger vetting process to determine who can purchase AND who can fire a weapon. The second part is I feel that there needs to be a system of laws that punish those that allow their weapons to get into the wrong hands. The purpose of these laws would be to insure that guns are secured at ALL times. Here's how I view that looking. If you are the registered owner of a weapon that gets used in a crime you are punishable by a fine of lets says $10k. If you allow your weapon to get stolen, you have not secured your weapon and are therefore punishable. The idea is that there aren't a lot of fines, just the threat of the fine leading to a lot more secured guns. I know its not perfect, but I feel a lot of the issues with guns have to do with the wrong people getting a hold of them. I know people want quick access, but there has to be some accountability for not securing a weapon.

Please let me know what you guys think about this type of solution. As I said, its not perfect but I was trying to think outside the box. Like many hot topic discussions the dialogue I've heard so far has only been "no restrictions" vs "no guns". Clearly neither is a perfect solution or even viable. It would also be cool to see people add a little more tact to the discourse...such is the internet.

Stephan why don't they restrict the first amendment so that you can only say certain words? We "the government" believe that you should not be able to use the word "beer" in a sentence because alcohol is evil and it can lead to bad things. Once you let your rights disappear there is no stopping. The men who wrote the constitution were brilliant and their ideals still hold true today.

To Stephan's. Question The Idea of gun owners being responsible for how your weapons are stored and kept is a great idea. BUT I also think its crossing a line. If you want to leave your gun stored how ever you feel is the safest way then I think that's your right. I do agree that its not a good idea to leave them lying around for fear that when you house gets broken into the gun gets stolen then ends up on the street. Making sure your gun doesn’t end up in the wrong hands should be a topic of discussion. And is a step in the right direction.

When pit-bull owners can’t or are not held responsible for what their dog does I have a hard time Going after a guy whose house gets broken into and his guns get jacked. That’s like attacking the victim.

A friend who is in Law Enforcement says he Hates taking reports of broken into houses when the owners say "the burglars took a bunch of my gun's" because he knows these guns end up on the street. He said it’s mostly people with lower end fire arms and NOT assult style weapons. He said the Guy's with a $3000 AR has his gun locked up and tucked away safe. It's the guys with the $150 Shot gun under the bed that make up the majority of gun owners that get jacked.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

Problem with "Good" people having guns to protect from these crimes is the following:

* Good guy has a gun and abides by the law
* Bad guy doesn't car about laws and will steal a gun and shoot up a public place
* Most public places with conceal and carry laws allow business to ban weapons if they so choose (e.i. Wisconsin).... Malls, stores, restaurants, theaters, etc almost always have a sign saying, "FIREARMS NOT ALLOWED ON PROPERTY" ..... so that means that all those good law abiding citizens would listen to that sign and not bring a gun onto the property..... thus leaving them just as vulnerable. If they did have the gun in there to stop a maniac, they'll look like a gun wielding maniac to the next guy who broke the rules and brought his gun in, since, "Only bad guys are bringing guns in here"........... a viscous cycle.

EDIT - found a stat that says 80% of businesses in CCW states still ban firearms/weapons

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

Jeremy; with every post you are quickly growing into your new name
"Lon-Wake-able" Your name is nestled right in between two of the biggest D bags known to wake world. Enjoy your notoriety!

Says the king of all douchebags on this forum. Dudes bash on you all of the time, you just aren't bright enough to catch on; between your third grade reading/spelling level and the absolute nonsense you speak, I think your title is pretty safe.

Just went to my local indoor shooting range today around 11. Compared to last Friday when they were stocked up i guess.. The walls of rifles look bare, the glass cases of pistols look a little empty, and within 20 minutes of me standing there @ 1130 am 5 more guns were sold!

I think some things to keep in mind when looking at the "stats" that are available and the impact on new/enhanced gun laws.

1. the old adage, "figures lie, and liars figure". so stats can always be skewed to represent a particular view. (like in the last chart, if i isolated ONLY the last two years data you could say it's on the increase.... albeit that data is pretty stale anyway).

2. the sheer number of guns in the US compared to other nations means what works in their country (statistically) won't necessarily work here.
- in other words, to say the murder rate went down in Australia after passing a few tighter gun control measures... well, they've never been real free to own guns in Australia, so there simply aren't the proliferation of them like there are here. if one in 50 Australians owned a gun before (and the population of Australia is much smaller too) then there just aren't that many guns out there in the first place. So tighter controls might have a greater effect. Whereas in the US where it's almost a 1:1 ratio of guns to population. Tighter measures simply won't have an impact. or could even have the opposite impact as there is a huge supply of guns for illegal ownership and as has been said multiple times, they're not following the law now, why would they follow new laws?